Delhi Court December 1995 Judgments

Bansal Containers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT425TriDel

1. This is an appeal against order dated 6-4-1992 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad.2. The short point involved in this case is whether Modvat credit availed by the appellants was regular and admissible.3. Appearing on behalf of the appellants Shri Umesh Batra, Consultant submitted that the appellants had taken Modvat credit in respect of the inputs in question against gate pass endorsed in favour of the registered office of the appellant company at Karipur. He stated that the factory is located at Fatehpur and on this account there could not have been any objection by the Department. As regards the finding of the Additional Collector that the credit was taken against a photocopy of the gate pass, he submitted that the appellants had filed later a certified copy of the original gate pass in favour of the appellants.On this ground he pleaded that the impugned order may be set aside. On behalf of the respondent, Shri Y.R. Kilania, JDR reiterated the finding...

Sunil H. Gaba Vs. Director of Enforcement

Court: Appellate Tribunal for foreign Exchange New Delhi

1. These appeals though arising from two separate adjudication orders are materially similar on facts. Shri Nankani, who appeared for both the appellants, submitted that his submissions would be common for both the appeals and both the appeals be taken up together. Both these appeals are, therefore, disposed of by this common order. I propose to deal with the first appeal in detail. 2. Appeal No. 302 of 1995 has been filed against Adjudication Order No. ADJ/160/AD/AKL/B/95 dated 31-7-1995 (despatched on 11-8-1995) under which a penalty of Rs. 15,000 has been imposed on the appellant for contravention of section 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ('the Act'). The appellant has deposited the amount of penalty. This order disposes of the appeal on merits. 3. The allegations on which the charge is based and which have been found substantiated by the learned Adjudicating Officer in his findings are that the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 to one Prem Moteka, a person ...

Deepak Woollen Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT307TriDel

1. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Deepak Woollen Pvt. Ltd., Dewas (M.P.), being aggrieved with the Order-in-Original dated 23-6-1994 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay.2. The matter relates to the import of prime acrylic tow in the garb of synthetic waste. The goods were imported during March, 1993 under the duty exemption entitlement certificate (DEEC) scheme. From the method of packing, physical and expert examination, chemical tests, etc. by reputed laboratories/Chief Chemist of the Deptt. of Revenue, it was seen that the goods imported were prime virgin fresh goods and not synthetic waste, acrylic and entangled filaments as declared. In the show cause notice dated 6-7-1.993, it was alleged that the goods had been mis-declared and undervalued. On the basis of the general trend of prices in respect of contemporary imports, the unit price of 1.90 US $ per kg was adopted for assessment, as against the declared unit price of US $ 1.35 per kg. The goods were also not found to b...

T.T.G. Industries Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT517TriDel

1. The appellants entered into a contract with M/s. SAIL, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai vide Acceptance of Tender dated 9-10-1989 for design, supply, supervision of erection and commissioning of 4 sets of Hydraulic Mudguns and drilling machines falling under Chapter Heading No. 8424 and 8465 of the CETA, 1985 required for the Blast furnace No.4 & 6 of Bhilai Steel Plant. The appellants imported various components which were cleared by Customs House, Madras. They also manufactured some goods at their factory at Marai Malai Nagar, Madras which were brought to Bhilai under their GP1 No. 12, dated 27-6-1990 to be used in the manufacture of Hydraulic Mudgun and drilling machine. These components/parts were brought from Madras to Bhilai vide various consignment Notes of Express Road Carrier Pvt. Ltd., Madras. Thereafter the appellants carried out the manufacture and assembly of the Top Hole drilling machine and Mudgun allegedly at about 100 metres away from the place of erection and remove...

Collector of Central Excise Vs. Stallion Shox Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT139TriDel

1. These appeals arise in relation to orders passed by the Assistant Collector on four price lists, the first having been filed on 20-7-1989 and the last on 27-11-1990. The Asstt. Collector issued show cause notice indicating that trade discount of 29%, cash discount of 2 1/2 % referred to in the price lists and the cost of wooden crates were not to be deducted from the price. The show cause notice was rebutted by the manufacturer (appellant in Appeal No. E/2522/93-A and respondent in Appeal No. E/705/93-A). The Asstt. Collector passed an order allowing trade discount of 26% out of 29% and disallowing cash discount and deduction for cost of wooden crates. In appeal, Collector (Appeals) allowed balance 3% trade discount out of 29% and 2V2 % cash discount and confirmed the disallowance of cost of wooden crates. The department being aggrieved has filed an appeal in regard to the trade discount and the cash discount, while the manufacturer has filed an appeal regarding the disallowance of...

Servo Electronics Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT267TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) dated 30-9-1985.2. Ld. Counsel sought leave to file a synopsis and a date sheet. He stated that the appellants were having three sheds in Delhi Small Industries Development Corporation Complex, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-II. They are manufacturing voltage stabilizers and parts thereof in these sheds under the same management.3. A question had arisen whether production of shed Nos. 83 and 84 was required to be clubbed for the purpose of determining whether they were entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 46/81 or department was entitled to deny them the benefit clubbing the two together on the ground that the production had exceeded prescribed limit of Rs. 30 Lacks.4. The matter had earlier come before the Tribunal for the period prior to 12-2-1982 and was settled by the Tribunal's Order No. 199/85, dated 14-3-1985.5. In this order, the Tribunal had upheld the department...

Ramnord Research Laboratories Vs. C.C.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(85)ELT77TriDel

1. This is an appeal against the order of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay dated 8-10-1986.2. The appellants have sent a letter dated 25th November, 1995 to the effect that they do not wish to appear either in person or through an authorised representative and the bench may take into account their letter dated 6-3-1987 forming part of the appeal.3. We have accordingly gone through the appeal memorandum and the impugned order and allowed the Ld. DR to make his submissions.4. Ld. D.R. stated that the appellants had imported ZOOM LENS for Movie Cameras and the item was classified under Heading 90.02 read with 90.08(ii) and the goods were allowed to be cleared without charging the countervailing duty.5. Subsequently it was realised that the item was not exempted for the purpose of C.V. Duty and hence, the less charge demand was issued. The Asstt. Collector confirmed the demand and the Collector (Appeals) confirmed the order of the A.C.6. The appellant has requested for the benefit o...

Leader Engineering Works Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT188TriDel

1. The four appeals are being disposed of by this order. The appeals relate to eligibility to Modvat on inputs used by the manufacturer.2. We have heard Shri J.S. Dhillon, Liaison Officer of the appellant company and Shri P. Das, SDR.Credit has been refused on aluminium bronze rods and phosphor bronze wire on the ground that these have not been declared under Rule 57G. It is no doubt true as the DR says that the goods have not been specifically declared. However, the declaration in S. No. 1(IV) and 1(VI) is bars and rods, wire of copper and copper alloys. The relevant tariff headings are also indicated. The tariff headings indicated in the supplier's gate pass figure in the. declared heading. Since bronze is an alloy of copper and in the absence of anything to show that copper is not the predominant metal in the alloy, we are of the view that goods have been declared and credit ought to have been allowed.Shri Dhillon stated that the appeal had been filed as a precautionary measure and...

Equipment Sales Corpn. Vs. Collector of Cus.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(82)ELT236TriDel

1. These are appeals against the order of the Collector of Customs, Madras both dated 21-11-1985.2. The dispute relates to an item described as 'Intravenous Cannula and Tubing for long term use' in the bill of entry and the invoices. The appellants had claimed the benefit of OGL [(Appendix 6 List II) of the relevant policy] as well as of the customs exemption Notification No.208/81 (as amended).3. The Ld. Collector however, denied them these benefits and confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fine and directed that the duty may be charged without deciding the issue relating to exemption notification.4. In his order the Collector has referred to an opinion of the DGHS which was called for at their back and without supplying a copy thereof.5. It was their submission that when they came to know subsequently that the similar goods have already been allowed the benefit claimed by them, by Tribunal's orders based on the revised opinion of the DGHS and the CCE, they forwarded the sampl...

Abrol Engineering Co. P. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1996)(83)ELT534TriDel

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 3-6-1987 passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh. By this order, the Collector has demanded duty of Rs. 6,34,105.97 and has imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the appellants.2. The facts, briefly, are that the appellants manufacture electrical switch gears, classifiable under the erstwhile Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. They were selling the goods to DGS & D and the Punjab State Electricity Board on rate contract basis. The case against the party by the Department is that during 1981-82 and 82-83, an officer of the DGS & D visited the factory premises of the appellants for inspection of the goods covered by the contract. The quantity of the goods presented for inspection was more than the balance shown in the statutory RG 1 register. The Department was of the view that the excess quantity has been clandestinely removed. Another allegation against the appellants is that they removed t...